Dear City of Pasadena Mayor Victor M. Gordo, Councilmember
Steve Madison and Yannie Wu-Bowman, Principal Engineer for the City of Pasadena, 

We are reaching out due to our increasing concerns about the installation of 5G towers in our community. We are not trying to impede technological progress, but would like to ensure that it unfolds in a manner that prioritizes and protects the interests of our residents and city. 
It came as a surprise, and admittedly a disappointment to us (and to many of the neighbors we’ve been speaking with about this) to learn that Pasadena's stance on this issue seems passive in comparison to other notable cities that have acted to protect their residents from the dangers posed by the unrestricted proliferation of 5G towers, such as Malibu, Palos Verdes, and Palo Alto.

We are aware that recent laws have made it more challenging for local governments to deny permit applications to telecommunications companies for small cell sites. And that is why we are not asking the City of Pasadena to issue an outright ban on all small cell sites. We simply ask that Councilmember Madison and the City of Pasadena will use all the tools that are legally available, to ensure that these small cell sites go up in a way that does not threaten residents’ safety and investment.

In particular, it is the prospect of a horrific fire raging through our district, sparked by faulty or deficient telecommunications equipment that was hastily approved, that most concerns us. In the last 15 years alone, four major wildfires in Southern California alone have been caused, in whole or in part, by telecommunications equipment. Over $6 billion in damages, lives lost, and lives destroyed. If anyone thinks that can’t happen in a densely occupied city like Pasadena, they need only look at the Lahaina fire in Hawaii.

That is why we’re asking that Councilmember Madison and other Pasadena officials take the following steps that are allowed notwithstanding recent developments in federal law, many of which other local governments have already done to protect their constituents:

 1. At a minimum, implement a mandatory application checklist process for all cell tower permit applications, that would include confirming plans meet all existing Pasadena aesthetic, electrical, fire, structural and building requirements. E.g. requirements that equipment be placed underground where possible, that equipment be camouflaged where possible, that equipment be deployed in the least intrusive way, etc. (In a recent examination of engineering designs on telecommunications applications submitted to several cities, 80% of the engineering designs for small cells and macro towers were deficient. Indeed, Pasadena Councilmembers these types of deficiencies have been a feature of permit applications submitted in Pasadena in the past, and were the basis for community opposition at the time)  

 2. Deny permits to any wireless carriers for applications that fail to specify a coverage gap or a valid justification for a particular cell site, as they are required to do under Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 12.22.070. (Other cities that have enforced this requirement have successfully done so without triggering lawsuits from applicants).

 3. Deny permits for applications that lack a tree protection plan as required under Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 12.22.110.

 4. Ensure that Pasadena’s notice requirements for proposed deployment of telecommunications equipment are met, per Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 17.50.310.

 5. Create special zones where cell towers will not be a allowed within a certain number of feet of specific facilities. This could legally be done for environmental reasons, to minimize potential fire damage, and to protect the aesthetic quality and community character of different civic and community uses (e.g. schools, fire stations, areas such as the Historic Arroyo Seco that are home to many endangered species and/or pose an especially high fire risk). Protected zones should also include areas within or immediate adjacent to historic or landmark districts (such as those in the vicinity of the Arroyo).  

 6. Utilize the city’s legal authority to do so under Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 12.22.110, to employ independent consultants and experts to verify radiation and emissions claims in permit applications. Instead of blindly accepting claims made about the same by the carriers in their applications.  

 7. Require Environmental Reports to be carried out for sensitive areas and create more rigorous fire, electrical, building and structural engineering requirements for permit applications, given the facts that District 6 is a very high fire hazard zone and that telecommunications equipment failures have caused an alarming number of the recent, devastating wildfires we have suffered in California.

 8. Mandate comprehensive coverage for injuries, fires, and property damage arising out of defective equipment or infrastructure failures, as a precondition for obtaining cell tower installation permits in the city.  Requiring sufficient insurance coverage represents a proactive approach to risk management, compelling telecommunication companies to adhere to the highest standards of operation and accountability.
We understand that the “shot-clock” puts pressure on local authorities to act quickly in approving or denying permit applications. But we hope this pressure does not lead Councilmember Madison and other local authorities to abdicate their duty to protect those of us who live, work and go to school in this wonderful city. Having a simple application checklist would be an easy way of ensuring that permit applications comply with the law. If they do not, the city representative can write a letter to the applicant explaining what is missing from the application, tolling the shot clock until the application is complete.  

Additionally, we understand concerns about permit application denials resulting in costly lawsuits against the city, brought by the telecommunications companies. But a failure to properly scrutinize applications at all – or approval of even those that fail to meet valid, local rules – also raises the risk of lawsuits against the city: from residents, non-profits and different grassroots organizations. This is happening in Los Angeles County right now.

In light of all these points, and understanding the constraints within which Councilmember Madison and the City of Pasadena operates, we emphasize our appeal for rigorous oversight of any small cell sites in our neighborhoods. With numerous other cities having found a way to navigate between federal constraints and their residents’ safety and satisfaction, we are confident that with genuine intent, our elected representatives can pioneer an approach that protects and prioritizes our physical and financial well-being. Thank you for lending your ears to our concerns, and we look forward to seeing a proactive, prudent and resident-focused approach to cell site deployment in our neighborhoods.

Sincerely, 

Pasadena citizens